| Literature DB >> 35172093 |
Kambiz Bahaadinbeigy1, Abbas Sheikhtaheri2,3, Farhad Fatehi4,5, Khadijeh Moulaei6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to develop and evaluate the usability of a telemedicine system for management and monitoring of patients with diabetic foot.Entities:
Keywords: Delivery of Health Care; Diabetic Foot; Remote Consultation; Telemedicine; Ulcer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35172093 PMCID: PMC8850172 DOI: 10.4258/hir.2022.28.1.77
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthc Inform Res ISSN: 2093-3681
Keywords and search strategy
| Keyword categories | Keywords |
|---|---|
| 1 | (diabetes* OR type2 diabetes OR type1 diabetes OR neuropathy OR diabetic neuropathies) |
| 2 | (diabetic foot OR diabetic feet OR diabetic neuropathies OR foot ulcer OR plantar ulcer OR neuropathic ulcers OR ischemia OR wounds OR osteomyelitis) |
| 3 | (telehealth OR telemedicine OR telemonitoring OR tele wound care OR telehomecare OR e-health OR smart phone OR mobile health OR wearable electronic devices) |
| Search strategy | [(1) AND (2) AND (3)] |
Demographic characteristics of the participants for identifying information needs
| Variable | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 12 (80.0) |
| Female | 3 (20.0) |
| Age (yr) | |
| 36–45 | 6 (40.0) |
| 46–55 | 7 (46.7) |
| >55 | 2 (13.3) |
| Level of education | |
| Specialist | 9 (60.0) |
| Subspecialist | 3 (20.0) |
| Specialty | |
| General practitioners and PhD in medical informatics | 3 (20.0) |
| Endocrinologist | 2 (13.3) |
| Physical medicine and rehabilitation | 3 (20.0) |
| Surgery | 5 (33.3) |
| Infectious diseases | 2 (13.3) |
| General practitioners and medical informatics | 3 (20.0) |
| Work experience (yr) | |
| 1–10 | 7 (46.7) |
| 11–21 | 6 (40.0) |
| >21 | 2 (13.3) |
Information needs for designing the telemedicine system
| Axis | Row | Name of information need | First round of Delphi | Second round of Delphi |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic information | 1. | First name |
|
|
| 2. | Last name |
|
| |
| 3. | Date of birth |
|
| |
| 4. | Gender |
|
| |
| 5. | Record number |
|
| |
| 6. | Height |
|
| |
| 7. | Weight |
|
| |
| History | 8. | Type of diabetes (type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes) |
| |
| 9. | Duration of suffering from diabetes |
| ||
| 10. | Duration of suffering from foot ulcers |
| ||
| 11. | Presence of foot ulcer |
| ||
| 12. | Duration of foot ulcer |
| ||
| 13. | Amputation |
| ||
| 14. | Laterality of amputation (left, right, or both) |
| ||
| 15. | Anatomical site of amputation |
| ||
| 16. | History of surgery |
| ||
| 17. | Leg undergoing surgery (left, right, or both) |
| ||
| 18. | Anatomical sites of surgery |
| ||
| 19. | Debridement |
| ||
| 20. | Gangrene |
| ||
| 21. | Critical ischemia |
| ||
| 22. | Peripheral neuropathy |
| ||
| 23. | Osteomyelitis |
| ||
| 24. | Calluses |
| ||
| 25. | Charcot foot |
| ||
| 26. | Underlying diseases (for example cardiovascular diseases, retinopathy, nephropathy, etc.) |
| ||
| 27. | Medications used |
| ||
| 28. | Smoking and alcohol consumption |
| ||
| 29. | Hospitalization history |
| ||
| 30. | Date of last hospitalization |
| ||
| 31. | Date of last foot examination |
| ||
| 32. | Number of foot examinations during the last month |
| ||
| Present illness | 33. | Existence of ulcers on the feet |
| |
| 34. | Laterality of foot ulcer (left, right or both) |
| ||
| 35. | Number of ulcers on the foot |
| ||
| 36. | Ulcer length |
| ||
| 37. | The exact site of the ulcers on the foot |
| ||
| 38. | Severity and depth of ulcer |
| ||
| 39. | Smell of ulcers |
| ||
| 40. | Numbness in the feet |
| ||
| 41. | The exact site of numbness in feet |
| ||
| 42. | Infection in the feet |
| ||
| 43. | Infected foot (left, right or both) |
| ||
| 44. | Exact sites of infection in the feet |
| ||
| 45. | Swelling, blisters and redness on the feet |
| ||
| 46. | Laterality of swelling, blistering, and redness of the foot (left, right, or both) |
| ||
| 47. | Exact sites for swelling, blisters and redness on the feet |
| ||
| 48. | Pressure on the sole of foot |
| ||
| 49. | Dry feet |
| ||
| 50. | Feet temperature |
| ||
| Laboratory tests, symptom and sign | 51. | Fasting blood sugar (FBS) |
| |
| 52. | Random blood sugar (RBS) |
| ||
| 53. | HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c) |
| ||
| 54. | Diastolic blood pressure |
| ||
| 55. | Systolic blood pressure |
| ||
| 56. | Respiratory rate |
| ||
| 57. | Heart rate |
| ||
| 58. | Oxygen saturation |
| ||
| 59. | Disorders and blood lipid levels |
|
| |
| 60. | Pathological tests |
| ||
| Therapeutic measures | 61. | Prescription drugs |
| |
| 62. | Drug dosage |
| ||
| 63. | Laboratory tests |
| ||
| 64. | Washing and bandage of ulcer |
| ||
| 65. | Amputation |
| ||
| 66. | Surgery |
| ||
| 67. | Laser therapy |
| ||
| 68. | Rehabilitation |
| ||
| 69. | Educating patients |
| ||
| 70. | Providing medical recommendations to patients |
| ||
| 71. | Debridement |
| ||
| 72. | Prescribing medical shoes |
| ||
| 73. | Determining the date of the next examination |
| ||
| Life style | 74. | Smoking and alcohol consumption |
| |
| 75. | Nutrition |
| ||
| 76. | Level of physical activity during the day |
|
accepted,
×: reviewing in the second round of Delphi.
Figure 1Main page of the telemedicine system.
Figure 2Flowchart of panel of patients.
Figure 3Flowchart of panel of doctors.
Figure 4Physician-physician interaction page.
Demographic characteristics of the participants in the system evaluation step
| Variable n | (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex, male | 4 (100) |
| Age (yr) | |
| 36–45 | 2 (50) |
| 46–55 | 2 (50) |
| Employment history (yr) | |
| 1–10 | 1 (25) |
| 11–21 | 3 (75) |
| Type of specialty | |
| Physics medicine | 2 (50) |
| General practitioner and PhD in medical informatics | 2 (50) |
Identified usability problems
| Primary groups | Row | Subgroups | Number of participants’ opinions | Sample participant statements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alignment of the needs of physicians and patients with the designed system | 1. | Insufficient attention paid to the need to communicate with psychiatrists and counselors | 1 | “I think the designed system is appropriate for the needs of the physician and the patient, but you have forgotten an important dimension for the patient: providing consultations for diabetic foot patients, who are usually depressed after surgery or amputation.” (Participant 1) |
| 2. | Insufficient attention paid to the possibility of sending the prescribed medicine to the patient’s home | 1 | ||
| 3. | Omission of the amputation field in the section of prescribing medicine and medical consultation | 2 | ||
| 4. | Omission of the possibility of uploading electromyography report in the information uploading section | 2 | ||
| 5. | Insufficient attention paid to the support of some insurance companies for patients | 3 | ||
| 6. | Absence of conditions for physician-physician interactions or physician-patient interactions through video conferencing | 3 | ||
| 7. | Insufficient attention paid to the needs of patients with visual impairment in the designed system | 1 | ||
| 8. | Absence of training videos and clips to prevent exacerbation of ulcers in the patient panel | 2 | ||
| 9. | Impossibility of holding group sessions among physicians on the physician-physician interaction page | 2 | ||
| Accurate recording of data and information and ease of understanding their concepts | 1. | Ability to send information on some pages without completing some obligatory fields | 2 | “Some fields are shown with a star mark and are obligatory, but other data can be sent to the database without filling those fields out.” (Participant 4) |
| 2. | No definition of the permissible numeric range for fasting blood sugar (FBS) | 3 | ||
| 3. | No specification of the left and right foot in the field for the number of foot ulcers | 2 | ||
| 4. | No specification of the left and right foot in the field for ulcer severity and depth | 2 | ||
| 5. | Difficult-to-understand concepts related to classifying the severity and depth of ulcers | 3 | ||
| 6. | English date and calendar, which are difficult to understand for people unfamiliar with English | 2 | ||
| Accurate recording of data and information and ease of understanding their concepts | 7. | Not using the same language (Persian) in all presentations of some of the main concepts | 2 | |
| 8. | Impossibility to connect some devices such as a glucometer to receive more accurate information and eliminate manual data entry | 1 | ||
| 9. | Ability to type numeric values instead of letters in some fields | 2 | ||
| 10. | Ability to type letters instead of numeric values in some fields | 2 | ||
| 11. | Mentioning type 1 diabetes twice in the field to select type of diabetes instead of type 2 diabetes | 2 | ||
| Correct uploading of required information | 1. | Inability to upload multiple test results simultaneously | 2 | “Why is it not possible for me to upload multiple tests together – instead, I can upload only one test result?” (Participant 4) |
| 2. | Insufficient attention paid to the size of images and videos uploaded | 2 | ||
| 3. | Ability to upload any image with any quality | 2 | ||
| Time spent recording information | 1. | Increased time spent uploading images and videos individually | 2 | “I think that the dose of medicine and description of the required surgeries on the physician page and in the prescription medicine sections should be designed in such a way that the physician selects the appropriate items and does not type them out, as it takes a lot of time.” (Participant 1) |
| 2. | Impossibility of multi-period reporting process to save time for physicians | 1 | ||
| 3. | Time spent by duplicate typing of some fields by the physician and patient (typing the name of the province, city, and medicines used and prescribed) | 3 |
Frequency distribution of participants’ satisfaction with the designed system
| Variable | n (%) | Satisfaction score |
|---|---|---|
| Level of satisfaction with system | ||
| Very high | 3 (75) | 3.75 ± 1.02 |
| High | 1 (25) | 1.25 ± 0.87 |
| Recommending it to other diabetic people | ||
| Yes | 4 (100) | 5.00 ± 1.82 |
| Purchase of system | ||
| Yes | 3 (75) | 3.75 ± 0.92 |
| No | 1 (25) | 1.25 ± 0.85 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.